The session is scheduled to take place from 2:30 p.m. – 4:00 p.m. on Saturday, September 26, 2009. To register for the meeting or other details, see here.

Chair Elect of the American Bar Association RPTE Employee Benefits & Compensation Committee, an ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council member, and Chair of the Curran Tomko Tarski Labor, Employment & Employee Benefits Practice, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for her work assisting businesses, employee benefit plan fiduciaries and vendors, governments, and other entities to develop administer and defend cost-effective employee benefit other human resources programs, policies and procedures to meet their budgetary, risk management and compliance and other objectives. Board certified in Labor & Employment law, Ms. Stamer applies her extensive experience regarding employment, employee benefit, tax, privacy and data security and other related laws to assists clients in a wide range of business and litigation contexts. The co-founder of the Solutions Law Consortium, Ms. Stamer also makes extensive use of cloud computing and other technology in her own practice and provides input to human resources and other clients others about the use of these and other technology tools to manage employee benefit, human resources, internal controls and other operations. In connection with this work, Ms. Stamer has works, writes and consults extensively with a diverse range of clients about the development, use technology and other processes to streamline health and other benefit, payroll and other human resources, employee benefits, tax, compliance and other business processes and the management and protection of sensitive personal and other information and data.

If your organization or employee benefit plan needs assistance managing or evaluating options or responsibilities associated with the use of technology and data in connection with its health care, employee benefits, tax or other operation or other human resources, employee benefits or and compliance concerns, please contact Ms. Stamer at cstamer@cttlegal.com, (214) 270-2402; or your favorite Curran Tomko Tarski, LLP attorney. For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi, LLP team, see here.

More Information & Resources

You can review other recent human resources, employee benefits and internal controls publications and resources and additional information about the employment, employee benefits and other experience of Ms. Stamer here /the Curran Tomko Tarski LLP attorneys here. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile here or e-mailing this information to Cstamer@CTTLegal.com or registering to participate in the distribution of these and other updates on our Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update distributions here. For important information concerning this communication click here. If you do not wish to receive these updates in the future, send an e-mail with the word “Remove” in the Subject to support@SolutionsLawyer.net.

Businesses that fire or discipline employees increasingly face retaliation claims by disgruntled workers claiming the protection of nondiscrimination and other federal and state whistleblower and anti-retaliation laws.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Crawford v. Metropolitan Gov’t of Nashville and Davidson County, No. 06-1595, highlights the need for employers to exercise constant vigilance to potential retaliation claims and the need to act to avoid retaliating, or appearing to retaliate against employees when conducting internal investigations, terminations, promotions or other workforce management activities. While the decision specifically addressed retaliation under Title VII, the use of similar language in other federal laws regulating business conducting – including those covered by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines – makes it likely that the decision has much broader implications.

Technically, the Crawford decision specifically applied to retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) in the context of a sexual harassment complaint investigation. However, business should anticipate that creative plaintiffs and their legal counsel soon will ask courts to apply the Crawford holding beyond sexual harassment to reach to claims brought by employees claiming injury in retaliation for statements made in relation to investigation of other federal statutes prohibiting retaliation. A host of federal and state employment and other laws prohibit businesses from retaliating against employees for reporting possible prohibited conduct or seeking to exercise certain rights legally protected rights. Because many of these statutes use the same or similar language to the anti-retaliation provisions of Title VI, share the same or similar purpose, or both, businesses should anticipate that certain courts will be inclined to view the Crawford rationale, if not its holding, as applicable to retaliation claims under certain of these other federal statutory prohibitions. Accordingly, pending further guidance, most businesses interested in minimizing exposures to retaliation claims will want to design and administer investigations to avoid the impression of illegal retaliation against witnesses in sexual harassment investigations as other investigations where similar anti-retaliation provisions may apply. Accordingly, most U.S. businesses will treat Crawford as having potential implications both in relation to sexual harassment and other investigations under Title VII as well as investigations conducted other federal laws containing similar anti-retaliation provisions.

The Crawford Decision

In its February 2, 2009 unanimous Crawford decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the anti-retaliation provisions of Title VII protect employees against retaliation for giving a “disapproving account” of unlawful behavior when responding to questions asked during the employer’s investigation of a sexual harassment discrimination, even if the employee took no further overt action to complain about, seek to remedy or stop the misconduct.

Vicky Crawford sued the employer under Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision, which prohibits an employer from terminating a worker because she “has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice” under Title VII. The Crawford case arose from statements Ms. Crawford made in response questions addressed to her as part of her employer’s investigation of sexual harassment rumors. Asked if she’d witnessed any inappropriate behavior by a supervisor, Ms. Crawford answered told the employer about a series of harassing acts by the supervisor toward herself. Besides reporting her experience in reply to employer questions during the investigation, however, Ms. Crawford did not file a sexual harassment complaint or otherwise report her alleged sexual harassment experience to the employer. Following the interview, the employer did not discipline the supervisor. However, the employer subsequently fired Ms. Crawford and two other employees who also reported being harassed by the supervisor. As part of its defense, the employer argued that Ms. Crawford’s report during the course of the investigation did not qualify as “opposition” prohibited under Title VII.

The question before the Supreme Court was whether simply disclosing an act of harassment in answer to a question constitutes “oppos[ing]” an unlawful practice, or whether – as the court of appeals had held – opposition within the meaning of the provisions requires something more assertive.

Applying the ordinary meaning of “oppose,” the Supreme Court unanimously found that “When an employee communicates to her employer a belief that the employer has engaged in . . . employment discrimination, that communication virtually always constitutes the employee’s opposition to the activity.” Accordingly, the Supreme Court ruled that protected opposition under Title VII includes giving a “disapproving account” of unlawful behavior, even if the employee takes no further action on her own to seek to stop or remedy the conduct.

Explaining its conclusions, the Supreme Court stated that a contrary rule that would require a worker to engage in “active, consistent” behavior in order to engage in protected opposition would be inconsistent with common usage. For example, the Court explained, one can “oppose capital punishment” without doing anything active to end it. The Supreme Court rejected as “freakish” an interpretation of “opposition” that would protect an employee who reports discrimination on her own initiative but not one who reports the same discrimination in the same words when her boss asks a question.”

While concurring in the unanimous opinion, Justices Alito and Thomas cautioned against reading that opinion too broadly. Their opinion clarifies that in their view, covered opposition must be “active and purposive” to qualify as protected. Consequently, they warned that the Court’s opinion should not be read to suggest that Title VII protects merely opposing a practice in principle (like opposing capital punishment) without taking any action at all to express that opposition.

Other Broader Potential Implications & Lessons From Crawford

Although the report by Ms. Crawford involved her notification to the employer that she too may have been sexually harassed, the implications of the Crawford decision reach more broadly.

Crawford specifically construed the anti-retaliation provisions of 42 U. S. C. §2000e–3(a), which makes it unlawful “for an employer to discriminate against any . . . employe[e]” who (1) “has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter”, or (2) “has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter”. This provision of Title VII and other equal employment opportunity laws, as well as the Family & Medical Leave Act and various other employment laws commonly contain similar prohibitions against an employer or business discriminating against protected persons for opposing unlawful practices or making charges, testifying, assisting or participating in investigation of practices prohibited under the applicable employment law. Consequently, there exists a significant probability that courts will apply the Crawford holding to retaliation claims brought by employees for testimony or other participation in investigation in other equal employment opportunity charges under Title VII and other employment laws.

It also is possible that employees ask the courts to extend the holding of Crawford to retaliation claims brought by employees claiming to have been retaliated against for participating in the investigation of or expressing opposition to illegal practices under a wide range of other statutes. Beyond the employment context, many other federal laws incorporate similar prohibits against employer discrimination against employees for opposing practices made unlawful under their provisions or providing testimony or participating in investigations of potential violations of their provisions. For example, in connection with its criminal prohibition of major fraud against the United States, paragraph (h) of 18 U.S.C § 1031 creates a right for individuals discharged, demoted, suspended, threatened, harassed, or in any other manner discriminated against in the terms and conditions of employment by an employer because of lawful acts done by the employee on behalf of the employee or others “in furtherance of a prosecution under this section (including investigation for, initiation of, testimony for, or assistance in such prosecution)” to recover for job and seniority reinstatement, 2 times the amount of back pay, interest, litigation costs and reasonable attorneys fees and other special damages.

Given these similarities, pending further guidance, U.S. businesses generally will want to exercise sensitivity when dealing with employees who express opposition, testify or otherwise participate in investigations or prosecutions of potential violations under Title VII and other federal laws that contain the same or similar anti-retaliation provisions.

Read from this perspective, the Crawford decision highlights the advisability for businesses not to overlook the potential significance of the statements and conduct by employees involved in any internal investigation, performance, or other activity that might later form the basis of a retaliation complaint.

Businesses generally should listen carefully when conducting investigations, employee counseling and discipline meetings, and exit interviews with an eye out for the need to investigate potential legal violations, defend against retaliation charges, or both.

Although businesses should continue to require employees to report known or suspected discrimination or other prohibited conduct in accordance with a specified formal procedure, the Crawford decision reminds businesses not to overestimate the protection afforded by the establishment of formal reporting procedures.

Crawford also highlights the need for businesses to be careful to investigate and properly respond to new charges of discrimination or other potential legal or policy violations that may be uncovered in the course of an investigation, disciplinary meeting or exist interview.

Additionally, businesses also should seek to evaluate the potential implications of their dealings with employees who previously have made charges, participated in investigations, or claimed other protected rights such as taking a protected leave or the like.

Likewise, as in the defense of other employment claims, Crawford also reflects the value and importance of businesses appropriately documenting performance concerns relating to a specific employee and legitimate business challenges motivating employment actions as they arise, in the event that it subsequently becomes necessary to present evidence of a valid performance or business justification to defend against allegations by an employee claiming to have been discharged or otherwise discriminated against in retaliation for engaging in protected conduct under Title VII or other similar federal anti-retaliation laws.

Finally, businesses should keep in mind the potential value of strong documentation. When seeking to defend against claims of discrimination or retaliation, the strength of the employer’s documentation often can play a significant role in the cost and ease of defense of the claim or charge. Businesses should work to prepare and retain documentation not only of allegations, investigations and determinations regarding both employee performance and discipline, as well as the handling of alleged violations of equal employment opportunity or other laws. Documentation should be prepared and retained on a systematic basis with an eye to strengthening the organization’s ability to prevent and defend against charges that the organization violated the core obligations under the applicable law as well as to defend employment decisions involving employees who may be in a position to assert retaliation claims.

The importance of good investigation and documentation practices takes on particular importance in the current tough economic environment. While retaliation claims have been rising for many years, the recent economic downturn is fueling an increase in the number of employees seeking to claim protection in the tightening economy based on retaliation or other employment law protections. Workforce dissention and changes in personnel also can complicate further the ability to defend these claims just as the Department of Labor and other federal regulators are turning up the enforcement heat. As a result, appropriate investigation and documentation procedures are particularly important in the current environment.

Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Can Help

If your business needs assistance auditing, updating or defending its human resources, corporate ethics, and compliance practices, or responding to employment related or other charges or suits, please contact Ms. Stamer at cstamer@cttlegal.com, (214) 270-2402; or your favorite Curran Tomko Tarski, LLP attorney. For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi, LLP team, see here.

The author of this article, Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Labor & Employment Practice Group Chair Cynthia Marcotte Stamer and other members of Curran Tomko and Tarski LLP are experienced with assisting employers and others about compliance with federal and state equal employment opportunity and other labor and employment, compensation and employee benefit compliance and risk management concerns, as well as advising ad defending employers against federal and state employment discrimination and other labor and employment, compensation, and employee benefit related audits, investigations and litigation, charges, audits, claims and investigations.

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Ms. Stamer has advised and represented employers on wage and hour and a diverse range of other labor and employment, compensation, employee benefit and other personnel and staffing matters for more than 20 years.

More Information & Resources

You can review other recent human resources, employee benefits and internal controls publications and resources and additional information about the employment, employee benefits and other experience of Ms. Stamer here /the Curran Tomko Tarski LLP attorneys here. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile here or e-mailing this information to Cstamer@CTTLegal.com or registering to participate in the distribution of these and other updates on our Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update distributions here. For important information concerning this communication click here. If you do not wish to receive these updates in the future, send an e-mail with the word “Remove” in the Subject to support@SolutionsLawyer.net.

U.S. businesses engaged to provide services on projects funded from the $787 billion of stimulus funding provided under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“ARRA”) signed into law by President Barack Obama in February, 2009 will face heightened equal employment opportunity scrutiny and be subject to special procedures by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”) according to “Procedures for Scheduling and Conducting Compliance Evaluations of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) Funded Contractors” issued July 7, 2009. See OFCCP Order No. ADM 0901/SEL the “ARRA Procedures”).

A review of the ARRA Procedures makes clear that ARRA funded contractors can expect to face much more rigorous scrutiny during their compliance audits that normally applies in non-ARRA contract compliance reviews.

OFCCP has established separate scheduling procedures to provide for compliance evaluations of ARRA funded contractors separate from those usually applicable to government contractors because ARRA obligates OFCCP separately to track its ARRA-related and non-ARRA-related enforcement activities.

The ARRA Procedures require that Regional, District and Area offices conduct a full compliance evaluation, including a full desk audit and onsite review, of every ARRA funded contractor establishment scheduled, even in the absence of systemic discrimination indicators. Normally applied by OFCCP to non-ARRA government contract reviews, Active Case Management (ACM) procedures normally allow OFCCP to conduct only an abbreviated desk audit in the absence of systematic discrimination indicators in non-ARRA compliance evaluations. These ACM procedures will not be used in ARRA compliance evaluations.

Due to the special nature of ARRA, OFCCP also has indicated that the ARRA compliance evaluations will not apply the following scheduling exceptions typically applicable in non-ARRA contract compliance reviews:

No more than 25 establishments per contractor exception: Presently, for contractors with multiple establishments, the Federal Contractor Scheduling System (FCSS) limits the number of compliance evaluations scheduled to 25 new evaluations during a scheduling cycle. The 25-establishment limit does not apply to ARRA compliance evaluations.

Two year exception: Presently, contractor establishments that have been reviewed by OFCCP are excepted from further review for a 24-month period. Under ARRA scheduling procedures, ARRA funded contractor establishments may be eligible for an ARRA compliance evaluation even if they have been reviewed within the previous 24 months. However, pre-award clearance is not required for contractor establishments reviewed by OFCCP within the past 24 months.

However, ARRA scheduling procedures will apply the following scheduling exceptions:

ARRA funded contractor establishments that have undergone an FCSS compliance evaluation will be excepted from scheduling and review under ARRA procedures for six months from the date of the FCSS case closure.

ARRA funded contractor establishments that have undergone an ARRA compliance evaluation will not be subject to another ARRA evaluation.

ARRA funded contractor establishments that have undergone an ARRA evaluation will also be excepted from scheduling for a standard OFCCP compliance evaluation, pursuant to FCSS, for 24 months from the date of closure of the ARRA compliance evaluation.

ARRA funded contractors also are subject to other special pre-award clearance, pre-award intake, pre-award classification and other special procedures. The ARRA Procedures also set for special requirements particularly applicable to construction contracts funded by ARRA.

The special procedures and heightened compliance review procedures provided for under the ARRA Procedures indicate that government contractors or subcontractors providing services or supplies on projects funded with ARRA funds will want to place special attention on compliance with OFCCP and other federal equal employment opportunity and other employment regulation compliance.

The author of this article, Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Labor & Employment Practice Group Chair Cynthia Marcotte Stamer and other members of Curran Tomko and Tarski LLP are experienced with assisting employers and others about compliance with federal and state equal employment opportunity and other labor and employment, compensation and employee benefit compliance and risk management concerns, as well as advising ad defending employers against federal and state employment discrimination and other labor and employment, compensation, and employee benefit related audits, investigations and litigation, charges, audits, claims and investigations. Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Ms. Stamer has advised and represented employers on wage and hour and a diverse range of other labor and employment, compensation, employee benefit and other personnel and staffing matters for more than 20 years. If your business needs assistance auditing or updating its wage and hour or other human resources compliance practices, or responding to wage and hour or other employment related charges or suits, please contact Ms. Stamer at cstamer@cttlegal.com, (214) 270-2402; or your favorite Curran Tomko Tarski, LLP attorney. For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi, LLP team, see here.

Other Information & Resources

You can review other recent human resources, employee benefits and internal controls publications and resources and additional information about the employment, employee benefits and other experience of Ms. Stamer here /the Curran Tomko Tarski LLP attorneys here. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile here or e-mailing this information to Cstamer@CTTLegal.com or registering to participate in the distribution of these and other updates on our Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update distributions here. For important information concerning this communication click here. If you do not wish to receive these updates in the future, send an e-mail with the word “Remove” in the Subject to support@SolutionsLawyer.net.

The federal minimum wage for non-exempt employees increases to $7.25 per hour this Friday, June 24, 2009. This means that by Friday, every employer of employees subject to the minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standard Act (FLSA) will be required to:

Update the federal minimum wage and hour notice postings that the FLSA requires employers post in a conspicuous place in all of their establishments to notify employees about the FLSA minimum wage and overtime rules. A revised Federal minimum wage poster, reflecting the minimum wage increase to $7.25 per hour is now available free of charge on the Department of Labor’s Web site here in multiple languages.

While implementing these required updates, U.S. employers also generally should audit existing wage and hour practices and documentation and take other steps to defend against the heightened emphasis on enforcement of federal wage overtime, minimum wage, child labor and other wage and hour laws announced by the U.S. Department of Labor Wage & Hour Division (WHD). In March, 2009 Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis announced that the Labor Department was adding 250 new field investigators and taking other steps to strengthen its enforcement of these federal wage and hour laws. See WHD Press Release. Consistent with this promise to emphasize wage and hour enforcement, the Labor Department has announced a series of wage and hour enforcement actions since President Obama took office in January affecting various industries in all regions of the nation. These include the following:

Labor Department officials are promising continued strong enforcement of federal wage and hour and other labor and employment laws in the months ahead.

The continuing emphasis of the DOL upon FLSA enforcement, coupled with the growth in FLSA enforcement actions by private plaintiffs, provides an important warning to employers of low wage workers specifically, as well as employers generally, of the importance of being prepared to defend their worker classification and overtime practices against DOL and/or private litigant investigations. When it updated its regulations governing the classification of workers as exempt versus non-exempt under the FLSA in 2004, the DOL urged employers to review and update their worker classification and overtime practices to comply with the updated regulations. At the same time, the DOL announced its intention to vigorously enforce its FLSA regulations against employers failing to adhere to these updated rules. Despite these widely publicized compliance efforts, DOL studies of employer compliance with overtime rules continue to reflect that 50 percent of employers are not in compliance with these mandates.

Therefore, in addition to adjusting existing rates of pay to comply with the increased minimum wage, employers also should:

Audit overtime pay practices to verify they comply with applicable federal and state requirements,

Review workers classified as exempt employees and/or non-employee contractors in light of the FLSA and applicable state wage and hour laws to assess the sustainability of these characterizations against a legal challenge; and

Audit the adequacy of current practices for tracking and documenting time worked by non-exempt workers in light of the FLSA and applicable state wage and hour laws.

Employers are cautioned to keep in mind that employers generally bear the burden of proving that their existing worker classification, wage and overtime practices meet or exceed the minimum standards imposed by the FLSA and any applicable state wage and hour law. In addition to specifically targeting wage and hour enforcement generally, the Obama Administration also has directed the Department of Labor and other agencies to carefully scrutinize the appropriateness of situations where businesses classify persons performing services as working in a non-employee capacity.

The minimum wage increase that takes effect this Friday is the last of three provided by the enactment of the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007, which amended the FLSA to increase the federal minimum wage in three steps: to $5.85 per hour effective July 24, 2007; to $6.55 per hour effective July 24, 2008; and now to $7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009. The latest change will directly benefit workers in 30 states (Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming) where the state minimum wage is currently at or below the federal minimum wage, or there is no state minimum wage. It will also benefit workers in the District of Columbia, where the minimum wage is required to be $1 more than the federal minimum wage. A family with a full-time minimum wage earner will see its monthly income increase by about $120.

Every employer of workers subject to the FLSA’s minimum wage provisions must post, and keep posted in each of its establishments, a notice explaining this act. The notice must be posted in conspicuous places to permit employees to readily read them. Posters and other compliance assistance materials concerning the minimum wage increase are available free of charge from the Labor Department’s Wage and Hour Division and may also be obtained from the agency’s Web site at http://www.wagehour.dol.gov.

Many states have minimum wage laws with provisions that differ from the federal law. When an employer is subject to both, the employer must pay the higher of the two rates.

The author of this article, Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Labor & Employment Practice Group Chair Cynthia Marcotte Stamer and other members of Curran Tomko and Tarski LLP are experienced with assisting employers and others about compliance with wage and hour and other employment and compensation compliance and risk management concerns, as well as defending employers against federal and state Department of Labor and private plaintiff wage and hour and other labor and employment, compensation and employee benefit charges, claims and investigations. Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Ms. Stamer has advised and represented employers on wage and hour and a diverse range of other labor and employment, compensation, employee benefit and other personnel and staffing matters for more than 20 years. If your business needs assistance auditing or updating its wage and hour or other human resources compliance practices, or responding to wage and hour or other employment related charges or suits, please contact Ms. Stamer at cstamer@cttlegal.com, (214) 270-2402; or your favorite Curran Tomko Tarski, LLP attorney. For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi, LLP team, see here.

Other Information & Resources

You can review other recent human resources, employee benefits and internal controls publications and resources and additional information about the employment, employee benefits and other experience of Ms. Stamer here /the Curran Tomko Tarski LLP attorneys here. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile here or e-mailing this information to Cstamer@CTTLegal.com or registering to participate in the distribution of these and other updates on our Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update distributions here. For important information concerning this communication click here. If you do not wish to receive these updates in the future, send an e-mail with the word “Remove” in the Subject to support@SolutionsLawyer.net.

Individuals concerned about the “American’s Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009” health care reform proposal introduced by the House Democratic Leadership earlier this week should target their input on the Democrats in Congress most likely to listen to those concerns. In the House of Representatives, these members likely are the “Blue Dog Democrats” in the House. Read about Blue Dog Democrats here.

The fiscal conservatism of Blue Dog Democrats makes them more likely to listen to concerns about the cost and other concerns relating to the health care reform bills touted by the Democrat Leadership in the House and Senate. In fact, many Blue Dog Democrats already are speaking out about their concerns about the cost and other aspects of the Bill.

Contact from voters and contributors in their districts and others could make a major difference in the ability that the House Democrat Leadership needs to pass their Bill. Immediately contacting these members and getting others – particularly voters and contributors in the districts that elect these members – is one of the most important steps that concerned Americans can do to position their concerns to be heard.

For most concerned voters, telephone or fax contact is the best means to convey these messages. To minimize spam, most members only accept e-mail submitted through their website links. Security concerns can delay receipt of written correspondence for weeks.

For persons interested in making their voices heard and sharing information with others who wish to do the same, the following contact information may be of interest:

We also encourage you and others to join the discussion about these and other health care reform proposals and concerns by joining the Coalition for Responsible Health Care Reform Group on Linkedin, registering to receive these updates here The author of this article, Curran Tomko and Tarski LLP Health Care Practice Chair Cynthia Marcotte Stamer has extensive experience advising and assisting health industry clients and others about a diverse range of health care policy, regulatory, compliance, risk management and operational concerns. You can get more information about her health industry experience here.

If you need assistance evaluating or formulating comments on the proposed reforms contained in the House Bill or on other health industry matters please contact Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, CTT Health Care Practice Group Chair, at cstamer@cttlegal.com, 214.270.2402 or your other favorite Curran Tomko Tarski LLP attorney.

Other Helpful Resources & Other Information

We hope that this information is useful to you. If you found these updates of interest, you also be interested in one or more of the following other recent articles published on our electronic Solutions Law Press Health Care Update publication available here. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please register to receive this Solutions Law Press Health Care Update here and be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail- by creating or updating your profile at here. You can access other recent updates and other informative publications and resources provided by Curran Tomko Tarski LLP attorneys and get information about its attorneys’ experience, briefings, speeches and other credentials here.

For important information concerning this communication click here. If you do not wish to receive these updates in the future, send an e-mail with the word “Remove” in the Subject to support@SolutionsLawyer.net.

On Friday (July 10, 2009), the U.S. Senate unanimously confirmed the nomination of attorney Phyllis Borzi as Assistant Secretary of Labor for the Employee Benefits Security Administration.

Highly respected by both union and non-union employee benefit plan practitioners and leaders, Ms. Borzi brings to her position an extensive resume of employee benefit experience including extensive governmental and private practice experience. Her private practice employee benefit experience has encompassed extensive representation of union and other employee benefit plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries and others.

In addition to her extensive private sector experience, Ms. Borzi also has extensive Congressional and other governmental experience. Until January 1995, Ms. Borzi served as pension and employee benefit counsel for the U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Labor-Management Relations of the Committee on Education and Labor. She was on the Committee staff for 16 years.

In 1993, in connection with the Presidential Task Force on Health Care Reform, chaired by former First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, Ms. Borzi served on working groups dealing with insurance reform, workers’ compensation and employer coverage. She holds a Master of Arts degree in English from Syracuse University and received her law degree from Catholic University Law School, where she was editor-in-chief of the law review.

Ms. Borzi is a charter member and a former President of the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel. She served as a member of its Board of Governors from 2000-2008. Ms. Borzi has served as a member of the Advisory Board of the BNA Pension & Benefits Reporter (and a former co-chair of the Board) and a former member of the Advisory Committee of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

Ms. Borzi has also served on the Advisory Board of the Pension Research Council, The Wharton School, The University of Pennsylvania and a member of the Board of the Women’s Institute for a Secure Retirement (WISER).

In 2008, Ms. Borzi was appointed by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio to serve as a public member of the Administrative Committee for the Goodyear VEBA, an entity that was judicially established pursuant to a negotiated settlement agreement between the company, the Steelworkers and class representatives for the Steelworkers retirees.

Ms. Borzi has published numerous articles on ERISA, health care law and policy and retirement security issues and is a frequent speaker on programs sponsored by legal, professional, business, consumer and state and local governmental organizations.

An active member of the American Bar Association throughout her career, Ms. Borzi surrenders her post as chair of the ABA’s Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (representing the Health Law Section).

Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Attorneys Can Help

Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Labor & Employment Practice Group Chair, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, and other members of Curran Tomko Tarski LLP has extensive experience advising employer and other plan sponsors, benefit plans and their fiduciaries about a diverse range of domestic and international health and managed care, pension, deferred compensation and other ERISA and employee benefit and employment compliance, administration, operational and public policy matters. A member of the Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (representing the Real Property, Trusts and Estates Section), Ms. Stamer is the current Vice-Chair and 2009-2010 Chair Elect of the RPTE Employee Benefits and Compensation Committee.

If your organization needs assistance with employee benefits and ERISA, compensation, managed care or other labor and employment, compensation or benefit concerns or regulations, please contact Ms. Stamer here or at (214) 270-2402; or your favorite Curran Tomko Tarski LLP attorney. For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi LLP team, see here.

Other Helpful Resources & Information

You can review other recent human resources, employee benefits and internal controls publications and resources and additional information about the employment, employee benefits and other experience of the Curran Tomko Tarski LLP attorneys here. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile here or e-mailing this information to cstamer@cttlegal.com or registering to participate in the distribution of these and other updates on our HR & Employee Benefits Update distributions here. Also stay abreast of emerging internal controls and compliance challenges by registering for our Corporate Compliance, Risk Management & Internal Controlsdistributions. For important information concerning this communication click here. If you do not wish to receive these updates in the future, send an e-mail with the word “Remove” in the Subject to support@cttlegal.com.